Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am honored today to join with over 230 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to introduce this joint resolution that recognizes the sizable impact and contribution that the members of the Army Reserve have had on this great Nation throughout its 100-year history.

This organization has a rich history of dedicated service and sacrifice. From its inception as a corps of medical officers on April 23, 1908, to its initial call-up, charged with running down the bandit ``Pancho'' Villa, to the challenges that the doughboys faced in World War I, to the bloody battles fought during World War II on the beaches of the Pacific to those of Normandy, to the hills of the war in Korea, and to the sands of the Persian Gulf, the Army Reserve has always rode to the sound of the guns and answered the Nation's call in its times of need, around the world, without hesitation, living their creed: Duty, Honor, Country.

Today, these soldiers and their loved ones shoulder a greater share of the burden than at anytime in our Nation's history. Since September 11, 2001, more than 177,000 Army Reserve Soldiers have been mobilized or deployed in support of the Global War on Terrorism. At any given time, more than 20,000 Army Reserve Soldiers are deployed to no fewer than 18 countries around the world. Their efforts will ensure that America's vital national security interests will continue to be fulfilled and that our homeland remains protected. I am proud to be counted among their ranks.

This resolution represents an opportunity for Congress to recognize the incredible history of service, sacrifice, and accomplishment of those soldiers who have served in the Army Reserve since its inception. Through war and peace citizen soldiers have contributed so much to answer the Nation's call to ensure that liberty endures. Please join me in celebrating that heritage and recognizing their proud history by supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the wrong direction. Our current focus should be on rebalancing our energy portfolio and responsibly accessing and managing our domestic energy resources to decrease our dependence on foreign countries. This legislation does not improve our energy security in any way. The included Renewable Fuel Standard mandates biofuel production levels which increase our Nation's dependence on the same supply source for both our energy and our food. Basing laws on unavailable technologies and taxing the industry that actually provides energy to the country now, does nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign countries' oil and gas.

I offered an amendment to strike the manufactured language in Sect. 413 of the bill. The bill in its current form would have detrimental effects on the industry, which is a significant contributor to the Indiana economy, and it would undoubtedly result in higher manufactured home prices for consumers.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has an ongoing stakeholder process to improve energy efficiency of manufactured housing. The HUD process strives for cost-effective efficiency standards that add real value for consumers and keep the overall product affordable. Section 413 would inject the Department of Energy into the process. Consumers and manufacturers fear that DOE's ``price- is-no-object'' track record on efficiency standards will mean that manufactured housing will be priced out of the lower and moderate income markets, harming consumers and costing jobs in the industry. Meanwhile, it will not help energy efficiency since the alternative, stick-built homes, have no national energy standards. Improving the energy efficiency of homes is important, and it is necessary that these efforts take into account cost criteria as well. The manufactured housing industry is already working to meet efficiency standards previously legislated in the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000. This energy bill's manufactured housing language would only add confusion by creating a duplicative program while simultaneously increasing the price of housing.

At a time when the United States' housing market is unsettled, Congress should be making use of every opportunity to assist the average American in their dream of homeownership. This energy bill would make an affordable housing option unaffordable for many Americans.

The Renewable Portfolio Standard in this bill also concerns me acutely. Without regard for the effect it will have on consumers' electricity costs, this standard would require States' investor owned utilities to meet 15 percent of their power generation with renewable energy. Coal is conspicuously absent from the list of acceptable fuels. Indiana has a 250 year supply of alternative energy in the form of coal. Coal is Indiana's most prevalent energy resource, and I cannot support a bill that does not take that into account. I cannot support a bill that increases our reliance on foreign countries for energy, limits States' access to their own resources, and drives up the costs of electricity for hard working Hoosiers when they are already shouldering higher gas prices, and home heating costs. Furthermore, the bill does not include nuclear energy as an acceptable source. This is most confusing because the bill claims to be about addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and nuclear energy emits no Carbon Dioxide. Responsible Federal policy does not walk all over States' rights, disregarding their unique economies and natural resources.

Democrats declare this bill an answer to rising energy costs, but it will only increase energy prices for Americans, and Hoosiers.

This is bad energy policy for our country. It is bad for consumers' pocketbooks, bad for Indiana and bad for my constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote no on Senate Amendments to H.R. 6.

I have come to the floor because what is clear is there are no disagreements with regard to the VA-Milcon appropriations bill. There is no disagreement between the House, the Senate or the White House, which means that weeks ago we should have appointed conferees and we should have voted on this bill if in fact our priority, in a bipartisan way, is clearly that of the troops.

So I come to the well really bothered here today. The word ``gamesmanship'' has been used. The word ``partisanship'' has been used. When it comes to funding our troops, those words should never be used. A few years ago, almost 2\1/2\ years ago, I met with Republican leadership and I wanted to get politics out of the military health delivery system and the VA. That is when I said get HUD out of VA and let's combine this. So what we have done by doing VA and MilCon, we do this so the authorizers and the appropriators can work together on the seamless transition issues so we get politics out of the arena.

And now to take this bill to which there are no disagreements and to attach it to a vehicle where there are disagreements, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is absolutely correct, it places the bill at risk.

The last speaker talked about HHS. I am here to talk about funding veterans and our troops and the dependents and their families. We shouldn't be playing these games with the White House if our priorities are truly with America's most precious assets, and that is the men and women who wear the uniform, and to care for those who keep the watch fires burning and their children. So let's don't play these games.

I have to agree with John Boehner. There is a reason the American people look at Congress with a 14 percent approval rating. It is because of these types of games.

We are better than this. We are better than this. So let's come together like we passed this bill 138 days ago and keep our bipartisanship and send this bill to the President.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and bid farewell to a distinguished leader and patriot, the Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Throughout his life, Secretary Nicholson has been a devoted servant to his country and fellow citizens. His bio is a classic American story that illustrates the potential each individual holds as a result of the liberty and freedom we cherish in this great Nation.

Secretary Nicholson's deeply held faith and hard work ethic reflect his heritage. One of seven children, he left his family and the peaceful Iowa farm on which he was raised, to graduate from the United States Military Academy at West Point. During his 8 years on active duty, Secretary Nicholson served as an Army officer and Airborne Ranger in the Republic of Vietnam. He also served in the Army Reserves for 22 years, retiring with the rank of colonel.

In addition to a distinguished military career, Secretary Nicholson holds an impressive list of academic accomplishments. He holds a master's degree from Columbia University and a law degree from the University of Denver. Secretary Nicholson was also successful as an entrepreneur and political activist. He established a thriving business in Denver, and ascended to become chairman and chief executive officer of the Republican National Committee.

In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed him Ambassador to the Holy See. Secretary Nicholson was subsequently knighted by Pope John Paul II in 2003 for his advocacy on a number of humanitarian issues.

Secretary Nicholson's life of service to others culminated in his appointment as head of the second largest Cabinet Department. As Secretary of Veterans Affairs, he proved to be a tireless and innovative advocate for his fellow veterans.

Our Nation will be eternally grateful for his devotion to the men and women who have defended our freedom and way of life. Secretary Nicholson decided to leave Government service to pursue other interests, and fulfilled his final day as VA Secretary on September 30, 2007.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the tremendous career of Secretary Nicholson and to thank him for his leadership and honorable service to our country. I wish him and his wife, Suzanne, the very best of luck and happiness during the next chapter of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1808, a bill to designate the VA Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia as the ``Charlie Norwood Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center'' which would honor one of our colleagues and one of my close friends who passed away this Congress.

Charlie Norwood was born on July 27, 1941 and attended both Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, Georgia and Georgetown University in Washington, DC. I have a close affinity to Charlie who was a dentist, like many in my family, prior to serving in the House of Representatives.

Charlie Norwood served as a Captain in the United States Army from 1967 to 1969. He began his Army career with an assignment to the U.S. Army Dental Corps at Sandia Army Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and in 1968, was transferred to the Medical Battalion of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam. He served a combat tour at Quin Yon, An Khe, and LZ English at Bon Son. During his tour of duty, he participated in experimental military dental practices that are now standard procedure for the Armed Forces. In recognition of his service under combat conditions, Norwood was awarded the Combat Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars. After his discharge in 1969, he remained a member of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Military Order of the World Wars until his death.

Mr. Speaker, Charlie Norwood served with us as a Member of Congress from January 4, 1995 until his untimely death on February 13, 2007. During his Congressional career, as a Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Charlie Norwood worked to pass a patients' bill of rights, aimed at giving people better access to health care, and spent his life supporting the overall well-being of veterans. Serving as a Member of the National Guard and Reserve Caucus, which I co-chair, he was a tireless guardian of our military and worked hard to protect TRICARE benefits, co-sponsored legislation to address military Survivor Benefit Plan inequities, and worked to get pay raises for our military members.

Mr. Speaker, honoring his hard work, and dedication to the military and our nation's veterans, as well as his love of nation by naming the VA Medical Center in Augusta, Georgia the ``Charlie Norwood Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center'' is a fitting tribute to our late colleague and friend.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the full support of my colleagues on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 680 condemning the act of vandalism on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial last month. On the evening of September 7th vandals dumped an oily substance, which damaged 14 of the 140 black granite panels commemorating the lives of more than 58,000 men and women killed or missing during the war. The substance has been cleaned up, however I believe it is important for the American people to know what happened to this sacred shrine.

Mr. Speaker, while no one has yet been connected with the vandalism, anti-war protesters earlier this year defaced other Washington landmarks. In January, protesters spray painted a Capitol terrace. Protesters later defiled the Lone Sailor statue at the United States Navy Memorial. This pattern of attacks is a national disgrace.

When I stand before the Wall and look on those names, I feel great humility in the presence of what this memorial represents. These men and women died so that our very way of freedom might endure. I call upon the coward or cowards who defiled this shrine to come forward and accept responsibility, or go back under the rock from which they came. It is an obscene perversion that others would creep out in the dark of night to deface the memory of heroes. The memory of these patriots endures in our hearts, whatever hateful attacks vandals may attempt.

I would like to thank my colleague Representative John Carter of Texas for introducing this important legislation, and I thank the House leadership for bringing it to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I have reservations regarding H.R. 23, as amended, the Belated Thank You to Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2007. I believe that H.R. 23, as amended, sets a poor precedent by awarding a $1,000 monthly payment to World War II Merchant Mariners. The authorization described in the bill has no requirement for the Merchant Mariner to have a disability or suffer from financial hardship. Currently, the only veterans authorized to receive a service pension are Medal of Honor recipients.

Whether or not to grant an unprecedented new service pension to World War II Merchant Mariners is not a question of bravery or contributions to victory over the Axis in 1945. Those questions have long been settled to the resounding credit of the mariners who braved unspeakable dangers to transport cargo that kept the Atlantic Alliance alive and fighting.

The Merchant Mariners serving during World War II were given veteran status under a system established by Congress in the G.I. Bill Improvement Act of 1977, Public Law 95-202. This process determined if civilian groups of World War II, like Merchant Mariners, should receive veteran status based on their service during the war. As of 1992, all World War II Merchant Mariners who served from the beginning of the war through victory in Japan day received full veteran status under this system. This means that all of these World War II Merchant Mariners are veterans and qualify for all VA benefits and services including healthcare and old age pension.

An objective and carefully researched report on the contributions of Merchant Mariners during World War II and post-war benefits for which they were eligible can be found in the Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Veterans Benefits: Merchant Seamen, May 8, 2007 (Order Code: RL33992: http://www.congress.gov/erp/r1/pdf/RL33992.pdf), by Christine Scott and Douglas Reid Weimer.

Thirty other groups that provided military-related service to the U.S. in World War II have received veteran status in the same manner as the Merchant Mariners. However, this bill ignores their service to the nation; it focuses only on the service provided by Merchant Mariners who served during that same period. These groups include the Women's Air Force Service Pilots, the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, the famed Flying Tigers and many others who gained their status decades after their service. They served loyally, selflessly, and courageously. Their service contributed directly to victory in 1945. Yet this bill does nothing for them.

During the full Committee markup of H.R. 23, I offered an amendment that would include these groups, which was defeated by voice vote. I attach a list of the other veteran groups that received veteran status under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-346) [Attachment A].

I also find the funding mechanism for this bill to be of concern. When this bill was introduced in previous Congresses, it was determined that because the benefit was an entitlement, it was subject to PAYGO offset requirements. However, the current bill uses a compensation fund to turn this entitlement into discretionary spending. This side-steps budget rules and places an unnecessary burden on the Appropriations Committees.

There is no current appropriations measure that would fund this benefit. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which is unable to identify the necessary PAYGO offsets to fund this benefit, is simply passing the buck to the Appropriations Committee. I do not believe this is a fiscally sound way to legislate. Further, if insufficient funds were to be appropriated, only some Merchant Mariners would receive the benefit, while others would not.

The Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), in opposing this bill said, ``If these measures were approved, the annuity payable for even a single month of Merchant Marine service in World War II would significantly exceed those payable to thousands of World War II combat veterans who served far longer and suffered significant combat disabilities . . .'' MOAA also wrote, ``A World War II military veteran who served 20 years and retired in 1955 at the grade of E-5 [sergeant] is entitled to a military retired pay check of only $900 today.''

I believe this legislation, though well-meaning, breaches precedent of pension policy law and does not make the best use of taxpayer dollars. I fear that it will have unintended consequences for future Congresses.

Attachment A

Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about a highly controversial provision that allows for commercial importation of prescription drugs from any country, regardless of the safety of their prescription drug supply, and includes no safety mechanisms to protect Americans from potentially harmful drug imports.

My greatest concern is the number of counterfeit, illegal, and unapproved drugs flowing into the United States right now under a system which is closed to prescription drug imports. Today, Customs and Border Protection estimates that 273,000 prescription drug imports enter our country every single day--of which less than one percent are screened before being sent to Americans' homes. A 2003 report by the FDA found that 88 percent of the medicines imported into the United States were unapproved or otherwise illegal.

Mr. Chairman, administration after administration, regardless of the party in control of the White House, has been unable to certify the safety of our prescription drug supply in a market open to prescription drug imports. I strongly oppose prescription drug importation and encourage my colleagues to support the Kingston amendment to strip the appropriations bill of the harmful importation provision.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes be added to debate equally divided between both the majority and the minority.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

It is disappointing that the objection was so loud and clear.

I do remember coming here in the minority, and at the time it was referred to as the Imperial Congress. It has not taken you very long to get back to where you were. That is disappointing. When I look at what is happening, you have the votes, you have the majority.

When I think about what just happened to the Commerce Committee, I have such great respect for John Dingell.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for John Dingell and how awkward he must feel that the leadership of this Congress took jurisdiction from his committee. Now, this is the same man that has respected the rules of process and procedure that has taught many of us in this House.

I think about the intolerance right now that the majority has of other people's views and opinions. That is very, very disheartening; and the American people should know and recognize what is happening here is wrong.

I just appeal to you once again, you have the votes. Do not turn Congress into an undemocratic institution. Think about when you were in the minority. There were times yet you didn't like what happened, but you had your opportunity to be heard. Yes, you may have lost an amendment or been voted down here or there. It is part of the democratic process.

Do not shut down the democratic process. That's what you have done on this bill. We should be reauthorizing the SCHIP program for children. Republicans created this bill. Let's do a clean bill. That's what we should be doing here on the floor.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I don't consider this a high-water mark for Congress in the 15 years I've been here. I don't consider it a high- water mark because I'm very disappointed in us, in how we have conducted ourselves with regard to our process, in how we have treated ourselves to each other, the lack of intolerance with regard to how we view each others' opinions. I don't think this is a high-water mark. A lot of this is taking place at the committee levels, and I have to reiterate my disappointment.

We can battle it out. The democratic process is never meant to be pretty and easy. It's a difficult process, but it's exactly what it was meant to do so we wouldn't have capricious actions, that we wouldn't have power centralized and imperialistic from the top down. And that's what kind of happened here, and I'm very bothered by it.

There is no ``time of the essence.'' Yes, this is a program that we came together in a bipartisan fashion and passed almost 10 years ago to care for children, poor and impoverished and to take care of them; and we've done that.

We can extend that existing program and work together in a bipartisan fashion, if that's what this was really about. But it's not.

Madam Speaker, the educators of our country's youth are the trusted stewards of our country's future, and it is important to recognize those outstanding and irreplaceable teachers who go above and beyond serving our communities. Mr. Christopher Cavanaugh, of Plainfield, Indiana, is one such estimable teacher. He is a profound role model for aspiring teachers and good citizens.

Mr. Cavanaugh has been teaching students and setting standards of excellence at Plainfield High School for 17 years. On June 14, 2007, he was recognized by the Plainfield Community School Corporation as the 2008 Teacher of the Year for his work teaching senior government, Cultural Heritage of the American People, and We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution. His exceptional work highlights the vital role the American people play in their Government, teaching students not only the principle of their rights, but the honor of their responsibilities.

Last year, Mr. Cavanaugh received the inaugural American Civics Teacher Award, a national award sponsored by the National Education Association, the Center for Civic Education, and the Center on Congress at Indiana University. When he traveled to Washington, DC, to receive this distinguished honor, I had the distinguished pleasure of meeting with him in my office to discuss his enthusiasm for teaching American civics and his dedicated service to the community. It was immediately clear that his priorities include not only endowing his students with knowledge, but motivating them to act on what they learn by being responsible citizens and honoring the ideals of democracy by being lifelong participants in their Government.

Outside the classroom, Mr. Cavanaugh continues to encourage and empower students as the coach of Plainfield's swimming and diving team. His devotion and impetus have earned him recognition from the Indiana High School Athletic Association and he has received the Swimming and Diving Coach of the Year award eight times.

It is an honor and a privilege to have Mr. Cavanaugh inspire the hearts and minds of young Hoosiers. His work honors democracy and helps to safeguard our country's future. By invigorating today's youth with the power and passion of the free world, Mr. Cavanaugh does his part to protect liberty for generations to come. I congratulate my cousin on his vision, his dedication, and his success. Chris, I am proud of you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for four bills that are before the House. H.R. 366, H.R. 2546, H.R. 2602, and S. 229 honor four Medal of Honor recipients who through their diligence and self-sacrifice protected the freedoms we hold dear today. As we move toward the Fourth of July recess, it is fitting that we pay tribute to these four men, two of whom were Native Americans.

H.R. 366 would pay honor to Ernest Childers by naming the VA Outpatient Clinic in Tulsa, OK, the ``Ernest Childers Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.'' A Creek Indian from Oklahoma, Ernest Childers enlisted in the Oklahoma National Guard in 1937 to earn extra money while attending the Chilocco Indian School in north-central Oklahoma. He was deployed to Africa to fight in World War II, and retired from the Army in 1965 as a Lieutenant Colonel. During action in 1943 in Oliveto, Italy, Childers ordered covering fire and advanced up a hill, single-handedly killing two snipers, silencing two machine gun nests and capturing an enemy mortar observer. His courageous action helped American troops win the battle and save the lives of American soldiers. Ernest Childers was also awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for his actions.

H.R. 2546 would honor the sacrifice of a Cherokee Indian from North Carolina, Private First Class Charles George, who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving his country in Korea. This legislation would name the VA Medical Center in Asheville, NC, as the ``Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.'' Private First Class George displayed gallantry and outstanding courage above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy, when enemy forces launched a grenade into his company and after calling out a warning to his comrades, he pushed one soldier out of danger, and with full knowledge of the consequences, unhesitatingly threw himself upon the grenade, absorbing the full blast of the explosion. It is more than fitting that we name this VA facility in his honor.

H.R. 2602 would pay tribute to Oscar G. Johnson by naming the VA Medical Facility in Iron Mountain, MI, the ``Oscar G. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility.'' Another of our World War II heroes, U.S. Army Sergeant Oscar Johnson led his company to protect the left flank of an offensive to break the German's Gothic Line. Under heavy fire, most of his company were either killed or wounded. Yet Sergeant Johnson held the line, and continued to single- handedly hold the line from September 16-18, 1944. On September 17, 1944, 25 German soldiers surrendered to him. He was sent two additional men to reinforce his position, but they were both injured and were removed to their rear. He remained on watch through the night, and when finally relieved of his post on September 18, 1944, 20 dead Germans were found in front of his position. By his heroic stand and utter disregard for personal safety, Sergeant Johnson was in a large measure responsible for defeating the enemy's attempts to turn the exposed left flank.

The final bill under consideration is S. 229, which would honor Raymond G. ``Jerry'' Murphy by naming the VA Medical Center in Albuquerque, NM, the ``Raymond G. Murphy Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.'' Serving in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve in Korea, Second Lieutenant Murphy had positioned his unit above the Imjin River facing the Chinese Communist troops. On February 3, 1953, American forces attacked the Chinese Communists who were dug into high ground. As the battle went on, sensing the operation was not being executed as planned, Lieutenant Murphy led his reserve platoon up the hill to find all the officers and noncoms of the two assault platoons dead or wounded and confusion among the troops. In the midst of machine gunfire, he ordered his men to find their comrades and evacuate the area. Jerry Murphy made several trips in the midst of heavy gunfire to rescue casualties. At one point, Jerry Murphy was helping lift a stretcher when he was hit in the back by fragments of an enemy grenade. He refused medical attention and continued to lead his men to rescue their wounded comrades, holding off the Chinese Communist troops with an automatic rifle until all the Marines were safe. Wounded a second time, Second Lieutenant Murphy continued to refuse treatment and provided cover for his troops, until all Marines were safe and accounted for. The House companion bill for S. 229 is H.R. 474, introduced by Congresswoman Heather Wilson.

The four men we pay tribute today served their country with honor, valor, and courage. The three Medal of Honor recipients who survived to return to the United States continued to serve their country in the military and in public service. After his retirement from the military in 1965, Ernest Childers continued his public service as a leader among the Creek Nation, and spoke out against racism. Oscar Johnson continued to serve his country as the foreman of a National Guard vehicle maintenance shop in Lansing, MI, and served for 30 years with the National Guard. Raymond Murphy dedicated 20 years of his life helping veterans in New Mexico, serving as the Director of the Veterans Services Division of the Albuquerque, NM, VA Regional Office from 1974- 1997. After his retirement from the VA, he continued to volunteer at the VA hospital in Albuquerque. As a final tribute to the veterans he cared for, upon his death this past April, Raymond Murphy requested to be buried in his VA Volunteer smock.

It is right and fitting that we pay tribute to these Medal of Honor recipients, who through their service to a grateful Nation, continue to provide inspiration, pride and encouragement for generations to come.

Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here, and I enjoyed the comments of the Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Edwards, and the comments of Mr. Wicker, and then I was disturbed by the comments of Mr. Obey.

Mr. Chairman, what I would say is he didn't go back far enough. I came here in 1992, and I heard the horror stories of what was occurring in the Appropriations Committee of how individuals would cut veterans programs to fund WIC and other programs. I was deeply disturbed by that.

Then I would watch as the Clinton years would flatten VA spending. I guess the gentleman forgot about that too.

I want to associate myself with Mr. Edwards' comments and Mr. Wicker's comments because this is a bipartisan issue, and I am deeply disturbed about Mr. Obey's comments to try to rewrite history here. Some of the language, inflammatory language, that he used is deeply disturbing to me.

Now, if the gentleman wants to talk about his issues and how he feels about the war, that's one thing; but don't allow those emotions to bleed into how we care for America's veterans. That bothers me.

We talk about how we got here. I recall the movie ``Born on the 4th of July.'' What did they depict in the movie ``Born on the 4th of July''? They depicted a VA system which bothered many people here in Congress. It was then Ken Keyser who worked for the Clinton administration who then thought that the best way we could improve our VA system is to move more people into the system. They set forth the priorities, but then they opened the system to the nondisabled systems.

When we opened that, we didn't really prepare the system for the number of veterans that came into the system. When I looked back here over the last 6 years, my gosh, we have almost doubled the veterans budget.

We also, as we are coping with dealing with the influx of veterans based on eligibility reform, I almost feel like, on the Veterans' Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis, we are mechanics looking at different subsets of systems within the VA that need a tremendous amount of work.

It's easy for us to always talk about the health side, but there is such a strong disability backlog too. If it were just money, if we could just throw money on it, and that's what would solve it, Mr. Edwards, if that's what you could put in the budget, it would be solved. The reality is that's not what's going to solve it. What's going to solve it will be management practices and accountability. If we don't have that, it's not going to be solved.

The chairman of the committee is now on the floor. When he held a roundtable discussion, he learned that they were giving exams to those who are the case workers out there. When you get only 23 and 27 percent pass rate by the individuals who are actually working on these disability claims, I would say we've got a problem and we have to work cooperatively on those problems.

I want to thank the new majority. I want thank the new majority because you are different from the old majority.

The old majority, when I came here a freshman, and I was in the minority, because that old majority did things a little differently, and those weren't good budgets on behalf of veterans. But when you came now in the new majority, Mr. Edwards, I congratulate you, because you have done what you said you were going to do. I want to personally thank you for that.

But I just want you to know this, Mr. Edwards, there is much work for all of us, because it's not going to be just money alone.

When Mr. Obey brought up the issue about the funding shortfall, what I did is I went in and I began to examine the finance modeling and found the errors in the inputs in the stale data in the model, and that's how we made the corrections. So even though we put in the $1.5 billion, we only spent a third of that, and the other went for carryover.

So there's going to be a lot of management issues, and there's going to be

a lot of oversight that we going to have to continue to do. But as a baseline, let me congratulate you, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Wicker, on a very good bill.

Picking up off the comment that Mr. Edwards had made in his opening statement about management, I think you're right on point. Good management of the resources and accountability is what's essential.

So when the chairman just spoke in the well and said, well, we don't have the money, that's not entirely correct because the GAO came back in 2005 and 2006 and said, we gave them sufficient resources allocated toward mental health, but they didn't even spend around $60 million that you had already given them in those cycles.

Mr. Edwards, you worked on those budgets. So it's not just giving them the money; that was my point made earlier.

So when Mr. Filner made the comment, they don't have the money; we had given them the money, then they didn't utilize it. And so I agree with Mr. Filner when he gets his angst about how it is that you don't spend money we gave you, yet you've got waiting lines.

It goes back then to the management question about the resources in which we get them, and that's where I'd like to work with you and work with the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would note, as I listened to the Speaker speak in the well, is that when the Republicans presented their budget proposal as an alternative, we spent $8 billion more than the majority in the 10-year scope, actually in the 5-year budget plan, $8 billion more. And we did it without increasing taxes.

So what everybody needs to understand here is, yes, we are increasing money here to veterans, but these are also the very same veterans which are about to be taxed.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, this amendment is either ill-conceived or politically conceived in that the Deputy Secretary is the gentleman who came to the committee to testify, and that was by agreement at the committee.

So to say that the administration sent someone who was uninformed is not a good way to address this to our colleagues.

That was by agreement of the committee, and it was the Deputy Secretary of the VA who came in and who testified, and as a matter of fact, his testimony, that I will share with all my colleagues, is that he testified just last week during the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on the SEC bonuses, at which the author of this amendment was present and he said, by statute, senior executive presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed appointees are not eligible for performance bonuses.

Did you hear that? They're not eligible for bonuses. So what we have here is, the gentleman's brought an amendment that is either redundant, multiplicitous or unnecessary.

With that, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Offered By: Mr. Buyer

Amendment No. 112: Page 17, line 23, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $15,700,000)''.

Page 45, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $15,700,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 392 that encourages Americans and people of all nationalities to visit American cemeteries, memorials and markers operated by the American Battle Monuments Commission.

More than 125,000 American war dead of the Mexican, Civil, Spanish American and both World Wars are buried in American cemeteries across the globe. Our overseas cemeteries are under the jurisdiction of the American Battle Monuments Commission. I believe they

are the gold standard in preserving the final resting place of this Nation's heroes.

I've had the privilege of visiting our cemeteries in Normandy, in Luxembourg and Cyrennes which is just outside Paris. I believe that those who work at these cemeteries, in fact, when I said they set the gold standard, it is a standard to which our VA cemeteries here in this country should achieve. It's emblematic, I believe, of our Nation's regard to those who made the highest sacrifice.

They are true shrines to Americans who came to lands that they had never seen, to fight for a people that they had never met. They fought for no bounty of their own and left freedom in their footsteps.

Normandy, the American cemetery, is probably the most famous of our Nation's overseas cemeteries. It is the final resting place of more than 10,000 Americans who died in one of the greatest and most decisive battles of the epic struggle against tyranny in World War II. This year the Commission will open a new visitors center to help communicate the story of this site to those who fought and died over its length and breadth in time.

I had the opportunity to deliver the Memorial Day address, along with my friend Henry Brown of South Carolina, at Normandy as I stood there on the cliffs at Omaha Beach in 2005, an experience that I will never forget.

When I visited the Luxembourg cemetery last year, I was in awe of the beauty of the white stone chapel flanked by two very large stone pylons as the centerpiece of this cemetery in which then-General Patton lies in rest before his men. These pylons have maps and inscriptions telling the achievements of the U.S. Armed Forces in the region. Inscribed here are the 371 names of missing who gave their lives near this site but whose remains were not recovered or identified.

The Luxembourg cemetery is also the final resting place for some 5,000 GIs who repulsed Hitler's final offensive in the Battle of the Bulge, including several members of the famous Band of Brothers, deposed in Steve Ambrose's book.

I think if you visited any of these cemeteries all over the world you can't help but walk away with the same feeling that I have, a strong sense of humility and very humbled that these individuals gave everything in the name of freedom and in the name of liberty.

I just encourage everyone so when you go overseas and you're on a trip, or you go to Paris, pause for a moment and go visit one of our cemeteries on foreign land.

And I'm pleased that after World War II we now make every effort to bring these bodies back to our own country. So from Korea and Vietnam and the first Gulf War, second Gulf War, we try everything we can to bring these bodies back.

And speaking of Korea, now that the chairman is here on the floor, I would even ask of the chairman, there is a bill that was filed by one of our colleagues to bring recognition to Raymond Jerry Murphy, to name the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New Mexico after this Medal of Honor winner. And I've given you several letters as to why this bill shouldn't be brought up. We're hopeful that you could have brought this bill to the floor while he was alive, but now he has since deceased.

So I would ask the chairman if he has knowledge as to why this bill shouldn't be brought to the floor and given the same honor to which you're giving here with regard to this bill.

I yield to the chairman.

So the chairman would raise an issue of germaneness rather than addressing the issue of how we honor the men and women who serve this country. That is disappointing.

This is a Medal of Honor winner from the Korean War in which we tried to seek to give recognition, just like we're doing in this bill, in how we honor our Nation's sacred fallen. This is an individual of whom is so respected in New Mexico the entire delegation supports it. It passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. The Senate bill lies upon this desk, but the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee won't bring it to the floor, and I don't understand.

I will now yield back to the gentleman for a better explanation, rather than germaneness, as to why you will not honor this veteran that the entire delegation of New Mexico supports.

No, the gentleman from Indiana yields to the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I absolutely yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

I will reclaim my time since the gentleman now is not speaking of a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I think by silence, by omission, the chairman just spoke, and how disappointed I am that veterans, that he just said that he wanted to come to the floor, that he was going to take this moment as a thank-you to veterans and all they do; yet here we have an opportunity in bipartisanship to recognize this Medal of Honor winner from Korea, whereby he wouldn't even do it when the gentleman was alive, and now he's deceased, and he still won't even give this individual the recognition. Yet the Senate bill, in a bipartisan fashion, lays upon this desk.

I am very disappointed, and I don't know what it's going to take to get you to move this bill and give the recognition. The Governor supports it. The two Senators support it. The Members of Congress from New Mexico support it. All the veterans service organizations support the bill, and I support this bill.

And if you know of a particular reason as to why this Medal of Honor winner, Mr. Murphy, should not receive this recognition by having the veterans hospital named in his honor, please let all of us know, because if you're blocking this for political motive, now we're upset.